By Christopher HerediaPublished July 18th 2006 in San Francisco Chronicle

The Oakland City Council will consider a proposal today to put on the
November ballot a measure to eliminate local primary elections and move
to a ranked-choice voting system.

Proponents of the change say Oakland voters should decide whether to
follow other cities, including San Francisco and Berkeley, in adopting
ranked-choice, which is also known as instant-runoff voting, and
consolidate local elections in the fall, when research shows more
people vote.

Detractors say instant-runoff voting could confuse voters and reduce
the number of ballots cast. Oakland's most recent primary election, in
June, featured a mayoral race, three City Council district races, a
city auditor's race, and choices for county and statewide officeholders
and ballot measures. All told, 86,379 voters cast ballots in June's
election -- 46 percent of Oakland's registered voters.

While voters elected a new mayor and re-elected two council incumbents,
one council seat and the auditor's race remain undecided because no
candidate in those two contests received more than 50 percent of the
vote. Voters will go to the polls in November to pick between the top
two candidates in each of those races.

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to name their top three choices for
any race. If no one gets more than 50 percent of the vote, the
candidate with the fewest first-place votes is dropped from the list,
the second-choice candidates on those ballots are moved to the top spot
and the ballots are recounted. The process continues until someone has
a majority of the vote.

Proponents say instant-runoff voting increases voter participation --
particularly in minority communities, whose members turn out in greater
numbers in fall elections -- and reduces candidates' need to raise
money, therefore allowing them to focus on issues in a campaign.

"This measure will not only result in more people voting, it will save
us the $200,000 we spend on primary elections -- money we could put
into voter education," said Councilwoman Nancy Nadel, who ran
unsuccessfully against Mayor-elect Ron Dellums in June. "Once people
are more informed about instant-runoff voting, we could use that money
for public financing of campaigns or filling potholes."

Councilman Larry Reid, who opposes eliminating primary elections, said
the current system works. He asked the city clerk's office to survey
voters about why they don't participate in elections and implored his
colleagues to work harder to educate residents about the need to vote
and participate in civic life.

"What we need to do, especially those of us of color, is more reaching
out, talking to communities of color about how to use the political
process and the importance of participating in the process," Reid said.

Chang said efforts to educate Chinatown residents about voting have
increased participation, and he would be reluctant to do anything to
complicate matters.

"I work with the elderly in Chinatown," Chang said. "I know they're
going to be confused by instant-runoff voting. It will discourage them
from voting at a time when their numbers are increasing."

Christopher Jerdonek, California representative for FairVote, a
Maryland group that works to increase voter turnout, countered that
research shows non-English-speaking voters understand ranked-choice
voting as well as English speakers do.

"Voter education is a big part of the implementation of instant-runoff
voting," Jerdonek said. "It has many prongs, including mailers, radio
announcements, also grants to community organizations and publicity in
ethnic media, so once people get to the polls, they have a good
understanding of how the system works."